On August 20, the Tenth Circuit ruled 2-1 that presidential electors have the constitutional right to vote for anyone who meets the constitutional qualifications to be president. Baca v Griswold, 18-1173. This is the first time any court has made such a ruling. The decision is 117 pages and the dissent is seven pages. Here is a newspaper story about the decision.
The decision says, “Article II and the 12th Amendment provide presidential electors the right to cast a vote for president and vice president with discretion. And the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that constitutional right.”
The dissent does not disagree, but says the case is moot. The decision is by Judge Carolyn B. McHugh, an Obama appointee. It is also signed by Judge Jerome Holmes, a Bush Jr. appointee. The dissent is by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, a Clinton appointee.
The case was filed by three Colorado Democratic presidential electors from the 2016 election. One of them, Michael Baca, refused to vote for Hillary Clinton even after the Secretary of State, Wayne Williams, warned him that if he didn’t recant, he would be removed as an elector. The other two plaintiffs had also initially said they would not vote for Hillary Clinton, but then yielded to the demand of the Secretary of State. Their motive was not that they had anything against Hillary Clinton. Instead, they were trying to show the nation that our Constitution gives discretion to presidential electors. The state may have the ability to decide how to choose electors, but it doesn’t follow that the state can then tell them how to vote. It is now quite likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this issue. Besides this case, there is also the case in the Washington State Supreme Court in which that court ruled 8-1 that electors can be fined for not voting for the expected presidential candidate. That case is already headed for the Supreme Court, with a cert petition due soon. That case is Guerra v Washington, 19A138.
The decision says that only Michael Baca has standing. He is the elector who refused to give in to the Secretary of State. The other two, because they yielded, do not have standing.
If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Tenth Circuit, and finds that electors do have discretion, it is likely that a constitutional amendment to alter or replace the electoral college will be enacted. Another consequence would be that “sore loser” laws could not be applied to presidential candidates, because it would now be apparent that the true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector, not the presidential candidate. And the presidential electors wouldn’t be “sore losers”.
For those who listened to the oral argument in the Tenth Circuit back on January 24, 2019, this outcome is not too surprising. It seemed apparent at the oral argument that there was one vote on each side, with little indication of how the third judge was leaning. Here is a link to the 33-minute oral argument.
The constitution enables the states to abolish the offices of Presidential Elector by amendment not arbitrary state legislation.
One more step on the super-short road to Civil WAR II.
Trump was de facto elected in 2016 by 25.7 [repeat 25.7] pct of the ANTI-Democracy gerrymander popular votes in 28 States and ME CD2 — 270 of 538 EC votes.
Guaranteed bribes and DEATH threats [or worse] for *faithless* 12 Amdt DARK AGE Prez/VP Electors.
Think 1860 deja vu all over again.
—
PR and Appv and TOTSOP.
Also — TOTAL subversion of 14-2 by the 2 MORON HACKS.
Popular election also of ALL judges via NONPARTISAN AppV —
to reduce the number of MORON HACK judges.
Major FATAL Defects in the 1787 USA Constitution – 7 Aug 2019
A. Election Related DEFECTS
1. No uniform definition of Elector-Voter in all of the USA – including DC and colonies 1-2-1, 17 Am
2. ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE gerrymanders in the 3 USA election systems – H. Reps. 1-2-3, 14 Am-2, Senate 1-3-1, 17 Am, Pres/VP Electoral College 2-1-2, 12 Am, 23 Am
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY.
Much, much, much worse primary math – est. 5-15 percent REAL minority rule by special interest primary gangs.
3. NO total majority requirement to enact laws (only majority of bare majority quorum 1-5-1)
4. NO election of USA Marshals and USA District Attorneys (to watch ALL other officers in all branches – esp. Presidents) and ALL USA Judges 2-2-2
DEMOCRACY REMEDIES –
(1) UNIFORM DEFINITION OF VOTER IN ALL OF USA. USA Citizen, 18 plus years old.
(2) PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR ALL LEGISLATIVE BODY ELECTIONS.
EQUAL Votes to elect each member.
Both Majority Rule [DEMOCRACY] and Minority Representation.
(3) NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS FOR ALL ELECTED EXECUTIVE AND ALL JUDICIAL OFFICERS.
Approval Voting – Vote for 1 or more. Highest win.
“If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Tenth Circuit, and finds that electors do have discretion, it is likely that a constitutional amendment to alter or replace the electoral college will be enacted.”
If that occurs, the most likely result would be that a state could require electors pledge to support the nominee but have the option not to do so. The electors will generally be party loyalists so being “faithless” would be unlikely though a few odd cases will occur. The cases, as here, however, would not likely change the end result. Scenarios might arise where even two or three faithless electors can throw an election, but even now. not every state (as I understand it) block that from happening. In theory, if it mattered, Congress might have the power not to count such faithless electors.
The chance of an amendment, an uphill battle, passing also would only likely be an issue AFTER the 2020 elections, SCOTUS at best hearing the case in early 2020.
Assuming the CO regime acts N-O-W with a CRISIS appeal –
SCOTUS may go into super-CRISIS mode even before Oct 1, 2019 – start of new 2019-2020 Term.
IE Arguments by 1 Nov 2019 – op almost immediately thereafter.
I don’t see any reason that it would become more likely that a constitutional amendment to alter the Electoral College would be enacted if this ruling should be affirmed by the Supreme Court. It seems more reasonable to alter an institution that has been ruled into obsolescence as opposed to one that has found new relevance in a ruling upholding elector prerogative.
CP-
12th Amdt elector prerogative = SCREW what the PUBLIC votes for.
Nonstop chaos in 1600s in England about Brit monarch *prerogatives*
>>> REVOLUTION in 1688-1689 – 1689 English Bill of Rights Act.
Stage set for 1761-1784 stuff in Brit colonies / USA States – 1775-1784 Am Rev WAR and 1776 DOI.
The Prez/VP electoral college was one more P-L-O-T / CONSPIRACY by the oligarchs from the small and slave States in the top secret 1787 Fed convention.
750,000 plus DEAD in 1861-1865 due to minority rule EC GERRYMANDER election of Lincoln in 1860
— the REAL cost to get 13-14-15 Amdts — including 14-2.
The reason a constitutional amendment is likely is because, if this decision is upheld, there would be a radical increase in the number of “disobedient” electors. Even in 2016 there were ten who either “disobeyed” or tried to. That was the most (for president, as opposed to vice-president) in history. They were from Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington. Also there was one from California who obeyed but still sued to overturn the law saying he had no choice, but that lawsuit lost on standing.
IF the 10 Cir op is upheld —
The Donkey and Elephant wannabee EC HACKS will be given lie detector tests, family/relatives/pets held hostage threats, etc. in addition to direct bribes and DEATH threats.
See the ROT in the olde *electoral colleges* for picking DARK AGE monarchs in Germany and Poland
— same monarchy/oligarchy ROT in the 1787 Fed Convention.
IE The EC is one of the many political SUPER- TIMEBOMBS in the USA regime.
@RW,
In 2016, the Democratic faithless electors were chosen at party conventions dominated by Sanders supporters. None of Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Maine, or Washington had presidential primaries.
The electors were disloyal to the national party nominee. Because of this disdloyalty, the Democratic Party in effect defrauded the voters.
A state could require presidential candidates to apply for a position on the general election ballot, and to supply the list of presidential electors associated with their candidacy. A state party would have the option to associate with the presidential candidate or not (and the national party could disaffiliate the state party)
A similar situation happened in Texas, where the state convention was actively working to choose delegates who would support Ted Cruz on a second ballot, but would actively work for a rule change that would release delegates on the first ballot.
I read some more commentary (link at Election Law Blog) and it is flagged that there can be more faithless electors especially with more attention granted to them. It’s possible. OTOH, the party can do more to select really loyal party types not likely to do that. Anyway, if there is an amendment, it won’t come until after the 2020 elections (a SCOTUS ruling would likely occur at best in late spring 2020 and this would be a bit of a rush if there is an en banc review here).
If this decision were upheld, it would be easier to be a faithless elector. But the question is, how many people would want to be faithless electors? I would think that a state party would focus even more on trying to find prospective electors who are true believers in the party’s nominees and unlikely to flake out and try to vote for someone else. In other words, if Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump, is the nominee (as in 2016), the state party needs to put together a slate of electors who really are enthusiasts for Hillary or Donald respectively, not people who are wishy-washy about their own party’s nominee.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned: If this ruling is upheld, it could prove fatal to the National Popular Vote Compact. No state could by law compel an elector to vote for the winner of the national popular vote contrary to the popular vote of their state.